2018
2018 Minutes
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Mike Donoho & Arthur “Trey” Gay
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 10/12/18 BZA meeting and Mr. Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Lawler began the meeting indicating there were two cases. One for a rear yard setback at 2040 Catalina Way and the other for variances for the Nolensville Veterinary Clinic at 7204 Nolensville Road.
The owner, Ms. Brandi Patee, represented the case for 2040 Catalina Way. She indicated that a pergola was existing on the patio and that would be removed for the covered porch. She indicated the lot backed up to woods and that the neighbors approved of the proposal.
Ms. Lawler indicated that the subject lot appeared to be the most affected by the cell tower lot.
Mr. Dugger indicated that the lot behind it was open space and would always be open space. He noted that the neighbors did not have an issue with the proposed porch covering.
Ms. Patee noted that the HOA had approved the proposed porch.
Mr. Dugger moved to approve the variance request and Mr. Gay seconded the motion. All voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Lawler introduced the second case for variances to construct an addition on the Nolensville Veterinary Clinic (7,187 s.f. total), install transition screening instead of a buffer, and reduce parking at 7204 Nolensville Road.
Mr. Blake Turner with T-Squared Engineering represented the case for the owner. He indicated that the business had been in operation for 31 years and that the variances were being requested to make the current structure more usable for the operation of the business. They were asking for a variance to the landscape buffer due to the existing pavement preventing the planting of the buffer. He noted that two Revive Church board members were present to comment on the buffer and use of screening as a substitute. There was a variance request to the amount of parking spaces required for the total square footage of all the buildings. The applicant felt the requirement of 65 spaces was excessive. Mr. Turner noted there has been ample parking available to date. The third variance request was for the size of the building that exceeds the 4,000 square foot limit per the Ordinance for veterinary clinics.
Mr. Dugger mentioned the site plan sheet that was shown on the screen (C-2.0) and noted the parking spaces appeared to be inconsistent with the notes on the plan sheet.
Mr. Turner indicated that he counted 36 spaces.
Mr. Gay indicated that there appeared to be a labeling issue.
Mr. Dugger mentioned that a note on the plan sheet stated it was necessary to display the appropriate standard parking spaces and the correct number of spaces required.
Mr. Turner noted that the number of spaces to be provided were called out in the letter of intent and that it was a typo. He said the plan will be corrected.
Dr. Brad Fly, the owner of the veterinary clinic, explained the need for the project in further detail. He indicated that there was no way for them to do the kind of medicine they would like to do as the practice has grown considerably since the business began. He stated that their space was constrained and that they were nearly running into issues with the state having to shift functions and equipment around. He said that they were needing to keep up with technology and were limited in the clients they were able to see due to the number of vets they have and space available.
Mr. Gay expressed appreciation for Dr. Fly’s explanation of the purpose of the project.
Mr. Dugger asked if the existing two buildings at the rear of the property were being used.
Dr. Fly explained that they had looked at moving part of the business into the two buildings, but the flow would be interrupted. He stated that the building was constructed for horses, but not for the general veterinary practice.
Mr. Dugger stated that it looked like the drawing showed two buildings.
Dr. Fly stated that the buildings are built together with a connection between them but have two roof lines.
Ms. Lawler asked if the plan was to demolish the buildings.
Dr. Fly indicated that three people own the back building and they have tried to find a reasonable use. He indicated that people have approached them about turning the building into a boarding facility and they were not interested in that proposal. They had discussed demolition of the buildings but there was no timeline set. He said the parking requirement for a new building or use was prohibitive and costly. He recalled the days when the equine facility was in operation and the difficulty of having the horse trailers circulating to and from the site.
Mr. Dugger asked about the number of employees and if that number would increase with additional veterinarians practicing at the facility.
Dr. Fly indicated that the number of employees that accompany a veterinarian are about three, and that they could have as many as 20 employees, but they would not all be there at the same time.
Mr. Donoho asked about the traffic flow and the single lane of pavement on the plans.
Mr. Turner asked if he was talking about the 24-foot drive aisle.
Mr. Donoho pointed to the side of the building at the parking area where there was 14.4 feet and then new pavement up against the property line.
Mr. Turner noted that it tied into the existed pavement and noted that the two shades of pavement marking on the plans showed the plan to expand the drive aisle to 24 feet wide.
Mr. Donoho asked if that was where the fence was proposed to be placed.
Mr. Turner indicated that was the case with a two-lane drive aisle.
Mr. Dugger indicated it would be 26 feet wide.
Mr. Turner stated that in some places the drive aisle would be 26 feet wide and they were trying to maintain 24 feet in width for the traffic flow. He continued that some numbers for trip generation had been run based on the square footage and size of the business and he came up with 26 new trips generated. He indicated that 8 or 9 new trips would be added during the peak hour.
Ms. Lawler stated that the application noted that existing trees would not be removed, but it appears from the plans that 4 trees may need to be removed.
Mr. Turner explained that some of the trees would need to be removed with more parking added. There were three trees being referred to in the front of the property that would be preserved. He stated that trees between the existing buildings will be preserved.
Mr. Dugger noted that the trees Ms. Lawler was referring to on the plans were where they were planning to expand the existing building.
Dr. Fly noted that there are two Bradford Pear trees that had been severely cut back in that area and that those would be removed. He stated that the Bradford Pear trees had become a risk. He confirmed that the big trees out front would be preserved.
Ms. Lawler inquired about the purpose for the stub outs from the parking area to the adjacent property to the south.
Mr. Turner explained that that was an Ordinance requirement to provide an opportunity for cross-connection.
Mr. Dugger added that the stub outs provided a radius for vehicles parking in the last spaces to back out.
Mr. Dugger indicated there did not seem to be an issue adding to the building, but that the parking was a concern because of the existence of the two buildings not being used.
Dr. Fly indicated that he preferred not to pave the front of the lot for parking.
Mr. Turner added that the current Ordinance requires a buffer and that there was not one now. He stated that representatives from Revive Church were there and did not want anything to block the view of their building.
Ms. Lawler asked for one of the church representatives to speak.
One of the Pastors from Revive Church named Brock Benson spoke and noted that an elders meeting was held. He stated that the church preferred not to have a buffer or a fence.
Mr. Gay asked the reasoning for not wanting a buffer.
Pastor Benson indicated that visibility had always been an issue for them. He added that the way that the buffer lines up on the plan would severely limit visibility.
Mr. Gay asked what would not be able to be seen regarding the lack of visibility.
Pastor Benson noted that there was an existing tree line on the north side of the property and to add one to the south side did not make sense to him.
Mr. Donoho asked if they were required to do water quality measures for the expansion and wondered if it was going to go out in the front of the existing building.
Mr. Turner indicated that they would be putting a water feature on site but did not have the specifics finalized.
Mr. Dugger had concerns about the two buildings that are not being used and that no parking was being considered for those buildings with the variance request.
Dr. Fly stated that the buildings in the rear of the property were not being used and that they may never be used.
Ms. Lawler indicated that if the buildings were torn down there would be two benefits, one was room for more parking.
Mr. Dugger indicated that if the buildings were torn down, there would not be a need for additional parking. He did not think that the Board should treat the property as if the buildings were not there.
Dr. Fly noted that it appeared the concern was figuring out what use could go in the unused buildings for the parking demand and that it was unknown.
Mr. Dugger noted that with a change of use permission was required, but if no change of use occurs, they could use the property as a separate veterinary facility.
Dr. Fly asked if it was put in writing that nothing could be done with the buildings would that satisfy concerns.
Mr. Dugger asked how that would be monitored.
Dr. Fly indicated it could be put in writing that it would not be a veterinary facility.
Mr. Donoho indicated that the Board had to make decisions based on what was happening today.
Ms. Lawler stated that brought up a previous question about the plans for the buildings that were not in use.
Dr. Fly indicated that the buildings were used for storage and he understood the Board’s concern.
Mr. Notestine indicated that the Board must consider the four criteria for variances and it appears that the only two that seemed to apply were A and B. He added that the shape of the property was an issue and that there was no harm to the public welfare. He said that the Board had to consider the application before them and would not be able to speculate into the future.
Ms. Lawler asked the Board if they wanted to defer action on the case.
Mr. Gay mentioned his reasoning for asking about the timeline for the project because of the time of year and inquired whether it would be an inconvenience to the applicant to allow for additional research by the Board.
Dr. Fly noted that it was a slow time of year and that the construction would be phased inside. He mentioned that the Board was welcome to come and look at the property.
Mr. Dugger noted that he had been to the facility and the property but had not been through the rear buildings. He had concerns about granting a total variance on the buffer.
Mr. Gay noted that he would like to have additional time to review the case.
Dr. Fly was agreeable to the deferral and wanted the Board to be comfortable with making a decision. He mentioned a preference that the front of the property be maintained.
Mr. Dugger indicated that the front of the property may change due to the requirements for water quality.
Mr. Turner indicated that there would be a water quality facility out front like what was located at the Dollar General.
Ms. Lawler stated that she would like to look at the buffer types and was not sure a fence was the approach to take the place of the landscape requirement.
Dr. Fly noted that in his experience building on the property they have encountered rock from the rear of the front building to the road.
Mr. Turner added that a requirement for a 20-foot landscape buffer would result in the relocation of the entrance drive and change the property. He noted that the existing drive was against the property line in a few places.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to defer the case for one month. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Lawler asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Donoho seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 PM.
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Mike Donoho & Arthur “Trey” Gay
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 10/12/18 BZA meeting and Mr. Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Lawler began the meeting indicating there were two cases. One for a rear yard setback at 2040 Catalina Way and the other for variances for the Nolensville Veterinary Clinic at 7204 Nolensville Road.
The owner, Ms. Brandi Patee, represented the case for 2040 Catalina Way. She indicated that a pergola was existing on the patio and that would be removed for the covered porch. She indicated the lot backed up to woods and that the neighbors approved of the proposal.
Ms. Lawler indicated that the subject lot appeared to be the most affected by the cell tower lot.
Mr. Dugger indicated that the lot behind it was open space and would always be open space. He noted that the neighbors did not have an issue with the proposed porch covering.
Ms. Patee noted that the HOA had approved the proposed porch.
Mr. Dugger moved to approve the variance request and Mr. Gay seconded the motion. All voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Lawler introduced the second case for variances to construct an addition on the Nolensville Veterinary Clinic (7,187 s.f. total), install transition screening instead of a buffer, and reduce parking at 7204 Nolensville Road.
Mr. Blake Turner with T-Squared Engineering represented the case for the owner. He indicated that the business had been in operation for 31 years and that the variances were being requested to make the current structure more usable for the operation of the business. They were asking for a variance to the landscape buffer due to the existing pavement preventing the planting of the buffer. He noted that two Revive Church board members were present to comment on the buffer and use of screening as a substitute. There was a variance request to the amount of parking spaces required for the total square footage of all the buildings. The applicant felt the requirement of 65 spaces was excessive. Mr. Turner noted there has been ample parking available to date. The third variance request was for the size of the building that exceeds the 4,000 square foot limit per the Ordinance for veterinary clinics.
Mr. Dugger mentioned the site plan sheet that was shown on the screen (C-2.0) and noted the parking spaces appeared to be inconsistent with the notes on the plan sheet.
Mr. Turner indicated that he counted 36 spaces.
Mr. Gay indicated that there appeared to be a labeling issue.
Mr. Dugger mentioned that a note on the plan sheet stated it was necessary to display the appropriate standard parking spaces and the correct number of spaces required.
Mr. Turner noted that the number of spaces to be provided were called out in the letter of intent and that it was a typo. He said the plan will be corrected.
Dr. Brad Fly, the owner of the veterinary clinic, explained the need for the project in further detail. He indicated that there was no way for them to do the kind of medicine they would like to do as the practice has grown considerably since the business began. He stated that their space was constrained and that they were nearly running into issues with the state having to shift functions and equipment around. He said that they were needing to keep up with technology and were limited in the clients they were able to see due to the number of vets they have and space available.
Mr. Gay expressed appreciation for Dr. Fly’s explanation of the purpose of the project.
Mr. Dugger asked if the existing two buildings at the rear of the property were being used.
Dr. Fly explained that they had looked at moving part of the business into the two buildings, but the flow would be interrupted. He stated that the building was constructed for horses, but not for the general veterinary practice.
Mr. Dugger stated that it looked like the drawing showed two buildings.
Dr. Fly stated that the buildings are built together with a connection between them but have two roof lines.
Ms. Lawler asked if the plan was to demolish the buildings.
Dr. Fly indicated that three people own the back building and they have tried to find a reasonable use. He indicated that people have approached them about turning the building into a boarding facility and they were not interested in that proposal. They had discussed demolition of the buildings but there was no timeline set. He said the parking requirement for a new building or use was prohibitive and costly. He recalled the days when the equine facility was in operation and the difficulty of having the horse trailers circulating to and from the site.
Mr. Dugger asked about the number of employees and if that number would increase with additional veterinarians practicing at the facility.
Dr. Fly indicated that the number of employees that accompany a veterinarian are about three, and that they could have as many as 20 employees, but they would not all be there at the same time.
Mr. Donoho asked about the traffic flow and the single lane of pavement on the plans.
Mr. Turner asked if he was talking about the 24-foot drive aisle.
Mr. Donoho pointed to the side of the building at the parking area where there was 14.4 feet and then new pavement up against the property line.
Mr. Turner noted that it tied into the existed pavement and noted that the two shades of pavement marking on the plans showed the plan to expand the drive aisle to 24 feet wide.
Mr. Donoho asked if that was where the fence was proposed to be placed.
Mr. Turner indicated that was the case with a two-lane drive aisle.
Mr. Dugger indicated it would be 26 feet wide.
Mr. Turner stated that in some places the drive aisle would be 26 feet wide and they were trying to maintain 24 feet in width for the traffic flow. He continued that some numbers for trip generation had been run based on the square footage and size of the business and he came up with 26 new trips generated. He indicated that 8 or 9 new trips would be added during the peak hour.
Ms. Lawler stated that the application noted that existing trees would not be removed, but it appears from the plans that 4 trees may need to be removed.
Mr. Turner explained that some of the trees would need to be removed with more parking added. There were three trees being referred to in the front of the property that would be preserved. He stated that trees between the existing buildings will be preserved.
Mr. Dugger noted that the trees Ms. Lawler was referring to on the plans were where they were planning to expand the existing building.
Dr. Fly noted that there are two Bradford Pear trees that had been severely cut back in that area and that those would be removed. He stated that the Bradford Pear trees had become a risk. He confirmed that the big trees out front would be preserved.
Ms. Lawler inquired about the purpose for the stub outs from the parking area to the adjacent property to the south.
Mr. Turner explained that that was an Ordinance requirement to provide an opportunity for cross-connection.
Mr. Dugger added that the stub outs provided a radius for vehicles parking in the last spaces to back out.
Mr. Dugger indicated there did not seem to be an issue adding to the building, but that the parking was a concern because of the existence of the two buildings not being used.
Dr. Fly indicated that he preferred not to pave the front of the lot for parking.
Mr. Turner added that the current Ordinance requires a buffer and that there was not one now. He stated that representatives from Revive Church were there and did not want anything to block the view of their building.
Ms. Lawler asked for one of the church representatives to speak.
One of the Pastors from Revive Church named Brock Benson spoke and noted that an elders meeting was held. He stated that the church preferred not to have a buffer or a fence.
Mr. Gay asked the reasoning for not wanting a buffer.
Pastor Benson indicated that visibility had always been an issue for them. He added that the way that the buffer lines up on the plan would severely limit visibility.
Mr. Gay asked what would not be able to be seen regarding the lack of visibility.
Pastor Benson noted that there was an existing tree line on the north side of the property and to add one to the south side did not make sense to him.
Mr. Donoho asked if they were required to do water quality measures for the expansion and wondered if it was going to go out in the front of the existing building.
Mr. Turner indicated that they would be putting a water feature on site but did not have the specifics finalized.
Mr. Dugger had concerns about the two buildings that are not being used and that no parking was being considered for those buildings with the variance request.
Dr. Fly stated that the buildings in the rear of the property were not being used and that they may never be used.
Ms. Lawler indicated that if the buildings were torn down there would be two benefits, one was room for more parking.
Mr. Dugger indicated that if the buildings were torn down, there would not be a need for additional parking. He did not think that the Board should treat the property as if the buildings were not there.
Dr. Fly noted that it appeared the concern was figuring out what use could go in the unused buildings for the parking demand and that it was unknown.
Mr. Dugger noted that with a change of use permission was required, but if no change of use occurs, they could use the property as a separate veterinary facility.
Dr. Fly asked if it was put in writing that nothing could be done with the buildings would that satisfy concerns.
Mr. Dugger asked how that would be monitored.
Dr. Fly indicated it could be put in writing that it would not be a veterinary facility.
Mr. Donoho indicated that the Board had to make decisions based on what was happening today.
Ms. Lawler stated that brought up a previous question about the plans for the buildings that were not in use.
Dr. Fly indicated that the buildings were used for storage and he understood the Board’s concern.
Mr. Notestine indicated that the Board must consider the four criteria for variances and it appears that the only two that seemed to apply were A and B. He added that the shape of the property was an issue and that there was no harm to the public welfare. He said that the Board had to consider the application before them and would not be able to speculate into the future.
Ms. Lawler asked the Board if they wanted to defer action on the case.
Mr. Gay mentioned his reasoning for asking about the timeline for the project because of the time of year and inquired whether it would be an inconvenience to the applicant to allow for additional research by the Board.
Dr. Fly noted that it was a slow time of year and that the construction would be phased inside. He mentioned that the Board was welcome to come and look at the property.
Mr. Dugger noted that he had been to the facility and the property but had not been through the rear buildings. He had concerns about granting a total variance on the buffer.
Mr. Gay noted that he would like to have additional time to review the case.
Dr. Fly was agreeable to the deferral and wanted the Board to be comfortable with making a decision. He mentioned a preference that the front of the property be maintained.
Mr. Dugger indicated that the front of the property may change due to the requirements for water quality.
Mr. Turner indicated that there would be a water quality facility out front like what was located at the Dollar General.
Ms. Lawler stated that she would like to look at the buffer types and was not sure a fence was the approach to take the place of the landscape requirement.
Dr. Fly noted that in his experience building on the property they have encountered rock from the rear of the front building to the road.
Mr. Turner added that a requirement for a 20-foot landscape buffer would result in the relocation of the entrance drive and change the property. He noted that the existing drive was against the property line in a few places.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to defer the case for one month. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Lawler asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Dugger made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Donoho seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 PM.
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, October 11th, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Mike Donoho & Arthur “Trey” Gay
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
Cristin Webb, Codes & Planning Assistant
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 08/16/18 BZA meeting and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Lawler began the meeting with two housekeeping issues.
1. The plat with the yellow overlay in the hand delivered packet was incorrect. The highlight should be on the lot identified with 5.13. Cristin Webb displayed an image with the yellow overlay over the correct plot.
2. The name of the owner has been amended to Kaito Miko, LLC as the correct applicant.
Ms. Lawler went over Section 1.9.5 in the Zoning Ordinance for the Town. This section described what the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) entail.
1. Variance requests: These requests arise for exceptional conditions such as a steep slope on property or the unusual shape of a lot. This is the majority of what has been reviewed by the BZA.
2. Boundary interpretations
3. Conditional Uses: Conditionally, the Board can accept a use such as a bed and breakfast or an assisted living home for example.
4. Administrative review: The BZA will hear and decide appeals of decisions of the Mayor or the staff.
Mr. John Mason came to the podium and introduced himself and the reason for the appeal, which was the Town’s denial to allow construction of an accessory building before a primary building was built on his property at 2564C York Road.
Mr. Mason explained that in July he filled out a building permit to build a 1,950 square foot structure on the property, but the permit request was denied as indicated in pages 7 and 8 of the packets.
Ms. Lawler clarified that what was being considered was if the determination made by staff was correct as per the Town’s ordinance.
Mr. Mason said he did not understand why the request was denied. He added that the appeal was filed to get clarification on what he is supposed to do to prove a primary use.
Ms. Lawler reviewed the 7 allowed primary uses in the ER Zone, which were single family dwellings, agriculture, nursery, stables, accessory home day care, park or kennel per Article 2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Lawler clarified that Mr. Mason was asking for an accessory structure when there was no primary structure.
Mr. Mason explained that he wanted to have a structure to store his tractor and for chickens. The tractor was now located in a trailer.
Ms. Lawler asked him if he intended to build a home on the property.
Mr. Mason said he was not planning to build a home at this time because the cost for sewer to go under Mill Creek was cost prohibitive, perhaps as much as $150,000. The only option currently was to go gravity fed through the back acres to the Silver Stream tap.
Ms. Lawler asked if he intended to come back to the Board in the future regarding the single-family dwelling after establishing this out building as agricultural.
Mr. Notestine noted that this was an interesting dilemma. The address was not in an agricultural zone. He stated that the property was zoned Estate Residential (ER) that allowed agriculture use. Mr. Notestine added that if Mr. Mason was asking the Board to determine it as an agricultural use, he would be completely committed to that use. Mr. Notestine said there can only be one primary use. He noted that Mr. Mason’s property would be limited in size for the agricultural use and the home would be an accessory structure.
Ms. Lawler repeated that Mr. Mason’s neighbor said he was not ready to build a sewer. She added that the town did not allow a storage building structure in an ER zone as a standalone use.
Mr. Dugger asked for some staff comments.
Ms. Sitterle explained that if there was a demonstrated agricultural use that was happening right now then it would be possible to have an accessory structure. Ms. Sitterle explained she must go by what the Ordinance says. Another restriction is that a standalone storage building was not allowed in the ER district. If an agricultural use was present such as the harvest of marketable hay either by himself or contracted out, that would allow for an outbuilding.
Mr. Mason said he did not understand the established use.
Mr. Gay clarified that no standalone storage buildings were allowed in the Estate Residential without a demonstrated use. Mr. Gay asked if Mr. Mason was a chicken farmer and asked where he lived. He explained that the Ordinance did not allow him to do what he wanted to do.
Mr. Donoho suggested that Mr. Mason erect a fence and put cattle on the property.
Mr. Mason asked again how he could work to prove a use.
Mr. Dugger explained that to be considered to get relief from sales tax as a farmer a person needed income of at least $1,000. That is what qualified someone to have that title. The role of the BZA was not to tell people what to do.
Mr. Notestine asked if the property had perked.
Mr. Dugger asked why a perk test was not done.
Mr. Mason explained that he knew it had not perked when he purchased the property but did not know how expensive sewer costs were.
Ms. Lawler asked Mr. Mason if Metro Water and Sewer would not extend the sewer.
Mr. Mason said that two different plumbers came to the property and told him the distance required a grinder pump.
Mr. Donoho asked the Board if it was necessary to make money off an agricultural use.
Ms. Sitterle answered that it goes back to the agricultural use of land as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Notestine said that if the Board were to determine that an agricultural use was okay then the primary building would be a barn and then the home would be an accessory structure. The home would not meet any guidelines for a home.
Mr. Dugger asked Mr. Mason what kind of structure he wanted to build.
Mr. Mason said he wanted to build a 35 foot by 65-foot wood building with a metal roof, windows and two doors.
Mr. Notestine clarified that this is an appeal of an administrative decision. He clarified that the Board did not have a variance request to consider.
Ms. Lawler asked if the Telfair subdivision was 850 feet away.
Mr. Mason said that one plumber indicated he would need at least that distance to track the line and get to the sewer tap.
Ms. Lawler asked if we knew whether the library was going to be located less than 850 feet from the property. She indicated it looked like the distance would be more than 850 feet.
Mr. Mason stated that it was necessary to go past the detention pond on the Telfair property to get the grinder pump.
Mr. Gay asked Mr. Mason about his primary source of income.
Mr. Mason answered that he was self-employed.
Mr. Gay said the reason for his inquiry was that he was making sure Mr. Mason’s career did not involve raising chickens.
Mr. Dugger said the purpose of the case before them was to rule on staff’s decision and that he supported staff’s decision.
Mr. Gay understood that the primary source of Mr. Mason’s income was as a robot programmer and that the property was owned by Mr. Mason’s LLC, Kaito Miko and located in the ER district. The Zoning Ordinance indicated that standalone buildings were not allowed without a primary use. His answer was to support staff’s decision.
Ms. Sitterle indicated she tried to explain how to demonstrate a use.
Mr. Notestine said that Ms. Sitterle followed the proper recourse.
Mr. Notestine told Mr. Mason that he was hearing the Board saying no to the appeal without an agricultural use. Perhaps in the future if Mr. Mason was able to prove an agricultural use then he could come back to the Board.
Mr. Dugger explained again that once a primary use of agriculture was established then a single-family dwelling could not be put on the property.
Mr. Notestine reiterated that the town was not in the business of telling someone how to do agriculture.
Mr. Dugger said the 2,000 square foot building was very large and asked Mr. Mason what he wanted to do with the structure.
Mr. Mason said he planned to grow some grapes and make wine.
Mr. Notestine said he had the choice to withdraw or ask for a ruling.
Mr. Mason said he wanted to withdraw his appeal.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Ms. Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:51 PM.
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, October 11th, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Mike Donoho & Arthur “Trey” Gay
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
Cristin Webb, Codes & Planning Assistant
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 08/16/18 BZA meeting and Mr. Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Lawler began the meeting with two housekeeping issues.
1. The plat with the yellow overlay in the hand delivered packet was incorrect. The highlight should be on the lot identified with 5.13. Cristin Webb displayed an image with the yellow overlay over the correct plot.
2. The name of the owner has been amended to Kaito Miko, LLC as the correct applicant.
Ms. Lawler went over Section 1.9.5 in the Zoning Ordinance for the Town. This section described what the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) entail.
1. Variance requests: These requests arise for exceptional conditions such as a steep slope on property or the unusual shape of a lot. This is the majority of what has been reviewed by the BZA.
2. Boundary interpretations
3. Conditional Uses: Conditionally, the Board can accept a use such as a bed and breakfast or an assisted living home for example.
4. Administrative review: The BZA will hear and decide appeals of decisions of the Mayor or the staff.
Mr. John Mason came to the podium and introduced himself and the reason for the appeal, which was the Town’s denial to allow construction of an accessory building before a primary building was built on his property at 2564C York Road.
Mr. Mason explained that in July he filled out a building permit to build a 1,950 square foot structure on the property, but the permit request was denied as indicated in pages 7 and 8 of the packets.
Ms. Lawler clarified that what was being considered was if the determination made by staff was correct as per the Town’s ordinance.
Mr. Mason said he did not understand why the request was denied. He added that the appeal was filed to get clarification on what he is supposed to do to prove a primary use.
Ms. Lawler reviewed the 7 allowed primary uses in the ER Zone, which were single family dwellings, agriculture, nursery, stables, accessory home day care, park or kennel per Article 2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Lawler clarified that Mr. Mason was asking for an accessory structure when there was no primary structure.
Mr. Mason explained that he wanted to have a structure to store his tractor and for chickens. The tractor was now located in a trailer.
Ms. Lawler asked him if he intended to build a home on the property.
Mr. Mason said he was not planning to build a home at this time because the cost for sewer to go under Mill Creek was cost prohibitive, perhaps as much as $150,000. The only option currently was to go gravity fed through the back acres to the Silver Stream tap.
Ms. Lawler asked if he intended to come back to the Board in the future regarding the single-family dwelling after establishing this out building as agricultural.
Mr. Notestine noted that this was an interesting dilemma. The address was not in an agricultural zone. He stated that the property was zoned Estate Residential (ER) that allowed agriculture use. Mr. Notestine added that if Mr. Mason was asking the Board to determine it as an agricultural use, he would be completely committed to that use. Mr. Notestine said there can only be one primary use. He noted that Mr. Mason’s property would be limited in size for the agricultural use and the home would be an accessory structure.
Ms. Lawler repeated that Mr. Mason’s neighbor said he was not ready to build a sewer. She added that the town did not allow a storage building structure in an ER zone as a standalone use.
Mr. Dugger asked for some staff comments.
Ms. Sitterle explained that if there was a demonstrated agricultural use that was happening right now then it would be possible to have an accessory structure. Ms. Sitterle explained she must go by what the Ordinance says. Another restriction is that a standalone storage building was not allowed in the ER district. If an agricultural use was present such as the harvest of marketable hay either by himself or contracted out, that would allow for an outbuilding.
Mr. Mason said he did not understand the established use.
Mr. Gay clarified that no standalone storage buildings were allowed in the Estate Residential without a demonstrated use. Mr. Gay asked if Mr. Mason was a chicken farmer and asked where he lived. He explained that the Ordinance did not allow him to do what he wanted to do.
Mr. Donoho suggested that Mr. Mason erect a fence and put cattle on the property.
Mr. Mason asked again how he could work to prove a use.
Mr. Dugger explained that to be considered to get relief from sales tax as a farmer a person needed income of at least $1,000. That is what qualified someone to have that title. The role of the BZA was not to tell people what to do.
Mr. Notestine asked if the property had perked.
Mr. Dugger asked why a perk test was not done.
Mr. Mason explained that he knew it had not perked when he purchased the property but did not know how expensive sewer costs were.
Ms. Lawler asked Mr. Mason if Metro Water and Sewer would not extend the sewer.
Mr. Mason said that two different plumbers came to the property and told him the distance required a grinder pump.
Mr. Donoho asked the Board if it was necessary to make money off an agricultural use.
Ms. Sitterle answered that it goes back to the agricultural use of land as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Notestine said that if the Board were to determine that an agricultural use was okay then the primary building would be a barn and then the home would be an accessory structure. The home would not meet any guidelines for a home.
Mr. Dugger asked Mr. Mason what kind of structure he wanted to build.
Mr. Mason said he wanted to build a 35 foot by 65-foot wood building with a metal roof, windows and two doors.
Mr. Notestine clarified that this is an appeal of an administrative decision. He clarified that the Board did not have a variance request to consider.
Ms. Lawler asked if the Telfair subdivision was 850 feet away.
Mr. Mason said that one plumber indicated he would need at least that distance to track the line and get to the sewer tap.
Ms. Lawler asked if we knew whether the library was going to be located less than 850 feet from the property. She indicated it looked like the distance would be more than 850 feet.
Mr. Mason stated that it was necessary to go past the detention pond on the Telfair property to get the grinder pump.
Mr. Gay asked Mr. Mason about his primary source of income.
Mr. Mason answered that he was self-employed.
Mr. Gay said the reason for his inquiry was that he was making sure Mr. Mason’s career did not involve raising chickens.
Mr. Dugger said the purpose of the case before them was to rule on staff’s decision and that he supported staff’s decision.
Mr. Gay understood that the primary source of Mr. Mason’s income was as a robot programmer and that the property was owned by Mr. Mason’s LLC, Kaito Miko and located in the ER district. The Zoning Ordinance indicated that standalone buildings were not allowed without a primary use. His answer was to support staff’s decision.
Ms. Sitterle indicated she tried to explain how to demonstrate a use.
Mr. Notestine said that Ms. Sitterle followed the proper recourse.
Mr. Notestine told Mr. Mason that he was hearing the Board saying no to the appeal without an agricultural use. Perhaps in the future if Mr. Mason was able to prove an agricultural use then he could come back to the Board.
Mr. Dugger explained again that once a primary use of agriculture was established then a single-family dwelling could not be put on the property.
Mr. Notestine reiterated that the town was not in the business of telling someone how to do agriculture.
Mr. Dugger said the 2,000 square foot building was very large and asked Mr. Mason what he wanted to do with the structure.
Mr. Mason said he planned to grow some grapes and make wine.
Mr. Notestine said he had the choice to withdraw or ask for a ruling.
Mr. Mason said he wanted to withdraw his appeal.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Ms. Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:51 PM.
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, August 16th, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield
Members Absent: Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
Cristin Webb, Codes & Planning Assistant
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 07/12/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting by explaining that originally, there were three cases to be heard but the first case from 3392 Redmon Hill in Bent Creek has been withdrawn.
The first case to be heard was a variance request for a covered patio and fireplace at 910 Whittmore Drive in Whittmore.
Joan Lawler said the drawing is very faint and therefore it is difficult to see the location of the 20 foot minimum setback line. She mentioned looking at the drawing that says, “Civil Site” very faintly below the sewer easement line there is a faint dotted line that originates at corner of the house and then goes to the left. Joan Lawler directed members to the black drawing on the next page where that minimum setback line runs parallel to the SF line. Joan Lawler added that it is difficult to tell from these drawings but right now there is a home directly behind 910 Whittmore on Crossfield Drive as well as a home facing the subject property, and a home under construction to the right.
In addition there is an approval from the HOA for the construction drawings of the patio and the pergola.
John Harvey, the contractor with Franklin Stone came to the podium and addressed the Board.
John Harvey explained that here is an existing patio at the back and he added another patio beside the existing patio. Mr. Harvey’s goal is to cover these two areas with a post and beam truss groove, white oak with large brackets, and a gabled roof. Additionally, the new slab patio will be covered by a shed style roof.
Tommy Dugger asked if both areas will be covered. He mentioned that to him a pergola is not covered.
John Harvey answered that this is a shed pergola that will be covered.
Joan Lawler added that the cover is a metal roof. That is one of the reasons why we looked to the HOA for approval of materials.
John Harvey explained that there is not enough pitch on the shed portion to put shingles. John Harvey is still finalizing the style choices with the homeowners Mr. & Mrs. Rossin.
Joan Lawler clarified if the existing slab is already somewhat beyond the minimum set back line and asked if the builder put that there.
Jarred Rossin answered yes that the builder put the slab there.
Mr. Rossin added that both patios are at that same level with no steps up or down.
Joan Lawler said the line comes off the right hand rear proper so whole home is within the setback line but the slab cuts it half way through the pad.
Wade Wakefield asked if the dark grey area to the left of the existing pad was with the house. John Harvey answered yes.
John Harvey added that the second pad is already installed and is even with the other existing patio.
Mr. Harvey added that the footer for the fireplace and two wood storage elements go 3 feet beyond.
Tommy Dugger asked staff if the fireplace requires an additional variance. Sarah Sitterle summarized that what we are considering here are structures in a setback. She added that the supports for the covered patio and the hearth in the setback are what have required the variance.
John Harvey added that if we were not building a roof we would not need to apply for the variance.
Tommy Dugger asked if one builds a structure and you build a fireplace, do we need a second variance beyond 7.5 feet. Joan Lawler explained that the 7.5 feet includes the fireplace and he understood the explanation.
Sarah Sitterle clarified that for a completely uncovered patio those can encroach in a setback; however, in this particular circumstance what we are dealing with are the support posts for that covering and the hearth and for that reason we need a variance.
Sarah Sitterle explained some nuances in the ordinances and added that if it were something that was cantilevered and did not need posts it would be allowed 6 feet into the setback.
Joan Lawler added that on the illustration on display the line that is visible demarks the beginning of the sewer easement. The line that is the setback actually starts from this right hand corner parallel to the line that you can see.
Wade Wakefield said he was trying to get a sense of the structure.
Tommy Dugger asked if this is a covered porch, not a pergola. In his understanding a pergola is not covered.
John Harvey elaborated that there will be two roof structures, both covered. One will be 8 frame and pitch and one will be a shed structure.
Wade Wakefild asked Bob Notestine if this case qualified for a hardship.
Bob Notestine answered that the setback line is crooked and not square at all. The line is not straight at all and it follows the property line.
Bob Notestine explained that the setback line is a feature that causes a hardship. The house is also not centered on the lot. The shape of the lot is odd and not at all rectangular.
John Harvey said he designed the covered porch with the fireplace on the side to capitalize on staying out of the sewer easement to make the most of the limited space.
Joan Lawler added that there is not much that can be done with this back yard.
Bob Notestine added that the rear set back line touches one area of the structure and runs into the corner of the home and that this family can’t do much without a variance.
Joan Lawler explained that the “20 NBS” is where the setback line is and that it goes through the existing poured patio.
John Harvey explained the peak part of the roof with asphalt shingles. Joan Lawler pointed out that there are several homes in Whittmore that have that arrangement.
John Harvey added that the structures are not deep but more lateral because of the lot shape.
Bob Notestine added that the lot is only 65 feet wide which presents another challenge.
Tommy Dugger said he spoke to the neighbors behind 910 Whittmore on Crossfield, Ms. Jennifer Moss and added that Jennifer said she did not have any issues with the Rossin’s building a covered patio.
John Harvey explained that shingle or metal roofing materials are both approved by HOA and building code.
Joan Lawler explained that several subdivision’s CC&R permit only shingles to be used. Sarah Sitterle researched Whittmore CC&R’s and confirmed that metal roofs may be allowed by the HOA.
Tommy Dugger directed attention to the two HOA emails asking if the two emails were the same. Tommy Dugger was confused by approval 1 and approval 2. Jared Rossin explained that he requested a second approval when he changed the materials. Jared and Crystal Rossin were originally asking for a louvred pergola so they sent a second request when different materials were chosen.
Wade Wakefield made a motion based on odd shape of lot to grant the variance for an additional 7.5 foot variance and Tommy Dugger seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The second case considered was Crossroads Veterinary Clinic at 7238 Haley Industrial Drive.
Brent Smith, developer, came to the podium and represented the project.
Joan Lawler drew attention to the memo attached to the application and asked if the applicant is essentially requesting to add two additional kennels.
Brent Smith answered that he is requesting an additional 1,197 square feet, not two kennels. In the existing building in Cool Springs there are masonry kennels that do not work well so the owner found pre-fab kennels but a walkway between the kennels is necessary. Brent Smith added that is a unique situation because the owner is moving an existing business from Cool Springs to Nolensville.
Joan Lawler added that this request does not affect neighbors or set back lines.
Tommy Dugger reminded everyone that the applicant was here back in February we noted that ordinance is restraining and that staff will be making the appropriate changes.
Tommy Dugger moved for approval due to the fact that the ordinance needs to be updated and that granting this ordinance does not cause any harm to the public. Wade Wakefield seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no o
Nolensville Town Hall
Thursday, August 16th, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield
Members Absent: Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Staff Present: Robert Notestine, Esq., Town Attorney
Sarah Sitterle, AICP, Town Planner & Zoning Administrator
Cristin Webb, Codes & Planning Assistant
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 07/12/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting by explaining that originally, there were three cases to be heard but the first case from 3392 Redmon Hill in Bent Creek has been withdrawn.
The first case to be heard was a variance request for a covered patio and fireplace at 910 Whittmore Drive in Whittmore.
Joan Lawler said the drawing is very faint and therefore it is difficult to see the location of the 20 foot minimum setback line. She mentioned looking at the drawing that says, “Civil Site” very faintly below the sewer easement line there is a faint dotted line that originates at corner of the house and then goes to the left. Joan Lawler directed members to the black drawing on the next page where that minimum setback line runs parallel to the SF line. Joan Lawler added that it is difficult to tell from these drawings but right now there is a home directly behind 910 Whittmore on Crossfield Drive as well as a home facing the subject property, and a home under construction to the right.
In addition there is an approval from the HOA for the construction drawings of the patio and the pergola.
John Harvey, the contractor with Franklin Stone came to the podium and addressed the Board.
John Harvey explained that here is an existing patio at the back and he added another patio beside the existing patio. Mr. Harvey’s goal is to cover these two areas with a post and beam truss groove, white oak with large brackets, and a gabled roof. Additionally, the new slab patio will be covered by a shed style roof.
Tommy Dugger asked if both areas will be covered. He mentioned that to him a pergola is not covered.
John Harvey answered that this is a shed pergola that will be covered.
Joan Lawler added that the cover is a metal roof. That is one of the reasons why we looked to the HOA for approval of materials.
John Harvey explained that there is not enough pitch on the shed portion to put shingles. John Harvey is still finalizing the style choices with the homeowners Mr. & Mrs. Rossin.
Joan Lawler clarified if the existing slab is already somewhat beyond the minimum set back line and asked if the builder put that there.
Jarred Rossin answered yes that the builder put the slab there.
Mr. Rossin added that both patios are at that same level with no steps up or down.
Joan Lawler said the line comes off the right hand rear proper so whole home is within the setback line but the slab cuts it half way through the pad.
Wade Wakefield asked if the dark grey area to the left of the existing pad was with the house. John Harvey answered yes.
John Harvey added that the second pad is already installed and is even with the other existing patio.
Mr. Harvey added that the footer for the fireplace and two wood storage elements go 3 feet beyond.
Tommy Dugger asked staff if the fireplace requires an additional variance. Sarah Sitterle summarized that what we are considering here are structures in a setback. She added that the supports for the covered patio and the hearth in the setback are what have required the variance.
John Harvey added that if we were not building a roof we would not need to apply for the variance.
Tommy Dugger asked if one builds a structure and you build a fireplace, do we need a second variance beyond 7.5 feet. Joan Lawler explained that the 7.5 feet includes the fireplace and he understood the explanation.
Sarah Sitterle clarified that for a completely uncovered patio those can encroach in a setback; however, in this particular circumstance what we are dealing with are the support posts for that covering and the hearth and for that reason we need a variance.
Sarah Sitterle explained some nuances in the ordinances and added that if it were something that was cantilevered and did not need posts it would be allowed 6 feet into the setback.
Joan Lawler added that on the illustration on display the line that is visible demarks the beginning of the sewer easement. The line that is the setback actually starts from this right hand corner parallel to the line that you can see.
Wade Wakefield said he was trying to get a sense of the structure.
Tommy Dugger asked if this is a covered porch, not a pergola. In his understanding a pergola is not covered.
John Harvey elaborated that there will be two roof structures, both covered. One will be 8 frame and pitch and one will be a shed structure.
Wade Wakefild asked Bob Notestine if this case qualified for a hardship.
Bob Notestine answered that the setback line is crooked and not square at all. The line is not straight at all and it follows the property line.
Bob Notestine explained that the setback line is a feature that causes a hardship. The house is also not centered on the lot. The shape of the lot is odd and not at all rectangular.
John Harvey said he designed the covered porch with the fireplace on the side to capitalize on staying out of the sewer easement to make the most of the limited space.
Joan Lawler added that there is not much that can be done with this back yard.
Bob Notestine added that the rear set back line touches one area of the structure and runs into the corner of the home and that this family can’t do much without a variance.
Joan Lawler explained that the “20 NBS” is where the setback line is and that it goes through the existing poured patio.
John Harvey explained the peak part of the roof with asphalt shingles. Joan Lawler pointed out that there are several homes in Whittmore that have that arrangement.
John Harvey added that the structures are not deep but more lateral because of the lot shape.
Bob Notestine added that the lot is only 65 feet wide which presents another challenge.
Tommy Dugger said he spoke to the neighbors behind 910 Whittmore on Crossfield, Ms. Jennifer Moss and added that Jennifer said she did not have any issues with the Rossin’s building a covered patio.
John Harvey explained that shingle or metal roofing materials are both approved by HOA and building code.
Joan Lawler explained that several subdivision’s CC&R permit only shingles to be used. Sarah Sitterle researched Whittmore CC&R’s and confirmed that metal roofs may be allowed by the HOA.
Tommy Dugger directed attention to the two HOA emails asking if the two emails were the same. Tommy Dugger was confused by approval 1 and approval 2. Jared Rossin explained that he requested a second approval when he changed the materials. Jared and Crystal Rossin were originally asking for a louvred pergola so they sent a second request when different materials were chosen.
Wade Wakefield made a motion based on odd shape of lot to grant the variance for an additional 7.5 foot variance and Tommy Dugger seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The second case considered was Crossroads Veterinary Clinic at 7238 Haley Industrial Drive.
Brent Smith, developer, came to the podium and represented the project.
Joan Lawler drew attention to the memo attached to the application and asked if the applicant is essentially requesting to add two additional kennels.
Brent Smith answered that he is requesting an additional 1,197 square feet, not two kennels. In the existing building in Cool Springs there are masonry kennels that do not work well so the owner found pre-fab kennels but a walkway between the kennels is necessary. Brent Smith added that is a unique situation because the owner is moving an existing business from Cool Springs to Nolensville.
Joan Lawler added that this request does not affect neighbors or set back lines.
Tommy Dugger reminded everyone that the applicant was here back in February we noted that ordinance is restraining and that staff will be making the appropriate changes.
Tommy Dugger moved for approval due to the fact that the ordinance needs to be updated and that granting this ordinance does not cause any harm to the public. Wade Wakefield seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no o
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
June 14, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Bob Notestine, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Permit Specialist Suzanne Brown
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 03/08/18 BZA meeting and Mike Donoho seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting by clarifying once again the explicit role of the Board of Zoning Appeals Board. Joan Lawler explained that an appeal to the BZA is often granted on physical characteristics of the property. For example, the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a property may cause consideration. Joan Lawler added that another example might be an oddly shaped property or a pie shaped property that requires some sort of consideration. Joan Lawler further explained that exceptional topographical conditions would also cause the Board to consider a variance request. The other criteria is a hardship not self-imposed. The third issue is financial gain and fourth is that there is no harm to the public welfare.
Joan Lawler introduced the case at 3392 Redmon Hill as a variance request in the Bent Creek PUD for Phase II, Section V.
Jason Hamilton came to the stand and introduced himself. Jason Hamilton works for Exodus Construction in Brentwood and said he was there on behalf of Mrs. Marna Craig the homeowner. Jason Hamilton added that Ms. Marna Craig was unable to attend.
Jason Hamilton began requesting a variance of 9 feet to the rear setback in order to build an 18’ X 17’ covered porch.
Joan Lawler said that the Board was provided a footprint but no drawing of a covered porch.
Jason Hamilton said there aren’t any drawings yet because Exodus Construction wanted to get approval of the variance first.
Joan Lawler told Jason Hamilton that the Board needs to see drawings. Joan Lawler further explained that from the footprint the Board simply does not have enough information.
Tommy Dugger added that the request on the form is for a 7 foot variance. Jason Hamilton said that it was reported as 7 feet by mistake.
Sarah Sitterle told the Board that staff did reach out to the applicant regarding the 7 ft mistake and the applicant admitted that this was an error. Sarah Sitterle clarified for the Board that the application is actually a 9 foot variance to the rear yard setback.
Mike Donoho asked Joan Lawler a question. If this lot is the same size lot as the adjacent lots and the same shape as surrounding lots, then the lot could not have distinct exceptional standards, correct?
Joan Lawler answered that yes, in her opinion the lot does not meet the exceptional or extraordinary standards.
Bob Notestine agreed with Joan Lawler saying that this is a standard PUD section that is small, not extraordinary. The Lot size is small and narrow and not deep.
Bob Notestine brought up the concern that this body does not change set-backs. Although this is semantics Bob Notestine explained that the Board does not change rear setbacks.
Bob Notestine explained that the Board has in the past approved some of these variances but there has always been a rendering of what is expected. In this case there is no rendering to help the Board.
Joan Lawler said that the footprint provided shows a poured concrete patio but she is unable to get a sense of how far the back from the wall the existing patio extends. Jason Hamilton answered that there is an 18’x10’ concrete pad now. Jason Hamilton answered the new structure comes 17 feet out, leaving 6 feet to the property line.
Arthur “Trey” Gay asked if this new structure would move 7 additional feet past the existing concrete pad. Arthur “Trey” Gay said he drove past the property and was concerned by how close it would be to the yard on the other side located on Locust Hollow.
Jason Hamilton said he is attempting to build a structure that does not look short and stubby. Jason Hamilton added that Exodus wanted to build something that is attractive for the customer and surrounding neighbors.
Joan Lawler asked if the structure could be more horizonal or parallel to the house and not quite so deep.
Jason Hamilton answered that it makes the most sense as Exodus has it on the footprint because the client has asked for a gable roof.
Joan Lawler added that the Board needed to see some drawings. Joan Lawler urged Jason Hamilton to look at section 2.2.2. Joan Lawler added that the Board does not have enough information to address the variance request in question.
Tommy Dugger added that the application tonight said that the home backs up to open space. Tommy Dugger explained that this is not completely accurate because the home backs up to other properties that are on Locust Hollow.
Tommy Dugger proposed a motion to defer and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion. The Motion passed unanimously.
Joan Lawler explained to Jason Hamilton that the applicant did not need to go through the application process again but that drawings and more information must be provided to the Board.
Jason Hamilton asked when the next meeting would occur.
Sarah Sitterle informed him that July 12th is the date for the next BZA hearing.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:14 PM.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
______________________ ___________________________
Chairperson Joan Lawler Date
Nolensville Town Hall
June 14, 2018
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Bob Notestine, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Permit Specialist Suzanne Brown
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 03/08/18 BZA meeting and Mike Donoho seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting by clarifying once again the explicit role of the Board of Zoning Appeals Board. Joan Lawler explained that an appeal to the BZA is often granted on physical characteristics of the property. For example, the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a property may cause consideration. Joan Lawler added that another example might be an oddly shaped property or a pie shaped property that requires some sort of consideration. Joan Lawler further explained that exceptional topographical conditions would also cause the Board to consider a variance request. The other criteria is a hardship not self-imposed. The third issue is financial gain and fourth is that there is no harm to the public welfare.
Joan Lawler introduced the case at 3392 Redmon Hill as a variance request in the Bent Creek PUD for Phase II, Section V.
Jason Hamilton came to the stand and introduced himself. Jason Hamilton works for Exodus Construction in Brentwood and said he was there on behalf of Mrs. Marna Craig the homeowner. Jason Hamilton added that Ms. Marna Craig was unable to attend.
Jason Hamilton began requesting a variance of 9 feet to the rear setback in order to build an 18’ X 17’ covered porch.
Joan Lawler said that the Board was provided a footprint but no drawing of a covered porch.
Jason Hamilton said there aren’t any drawings yet because Exodus Construction wanted to get approval of the variance first.
Joan Lawler told Jason Hamilton that the Board needs to see drawings. Joan Lawler further explained that from the footprint the Board simply does not have enough information.
Tommy Dugger added that the request on the form is for a 7 foot variance. Jason Hamilton said that it was reported as 7 feet by mistake.
Sarah Sitterle told the Board that staff did reach out to the applicant regarding the 7 ft mistake and the applicant admitted that this was an error. Sarah Sitterle clarified for the Board that the application is actually a 9 foot variance to the rear yard setback.
Mike Donoho asked Joan Lawler a question. If this lot is the same size lot as the adjacent lots and the same shape as surrounding lots, then the lot could not have distinct exceptional standards, correct?
Joan Lawler answered that yes, in her opinion the lot does not meet the exceptional or extraordinary standards.
Bob Notestine agreed with Joan Lawler saying that this is a standard PUD section that is small, not extraordinary. The Lot size is small and narrow and not deep.
Bob Notestine brought up the concern that this body does not change set-backs. Although this is semantics Bob Notestine explained that the Board does not change rear setbacks.
Bob Notestine explained that the Board has in the past approved some of these variances but there has always been a rendering of what is expected. In this case there is no rendering to help the Board.
Joan Lawler said that the footprint provided shows a poured concrete patio but she is unable to get a sense of how far the back from the wall the existing patio extends. Jason Hamilton answered that there is an 18’x10’ concrete pad now. Jason Hamilton answered the new structure comes 17 feet out, leaving 6 feet to the property line.
Arthur “Trey” Gay asked if this new structure would move 7 additional feet past the existing concrete pad. Arthur “Trey” Gay said he drove past the property and was concerned by how close it would be to the yard on the other side located on Locust Hollow.
Jason Hamilton said he is attempting to build a structure that does not look short and stubby. Jason Hamilton added that Exodus wanted to build something that is attractive for the customer and surrounding neighbors.
Joan Lawler asked if the structure could be more horizonal or parallel to the house and not quite so deep.
Jason Hamilton answered that it makes the most sense as Exodus has it on the footprint because the client has asked for a gable roof.
Joan Lawler added that the Board needed to see some drawings. Joan Lawler urged Jason Hamilton to look at section 2.2.2. Joan Lawler added that the Board does not have enough information to address the variance request in question.
Tommy Dugger added that the application tonight said that the home backs up to open space. Tommy Dugger explained that this is not completely accurate because the home backs up to other properties that are on Locust Hollow.
Tommy Dugger proposed a motion to defer and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion. The Motion passed unanimously.
Joan Lawler explained to Jason Hamilton that the applicant did not need to go through the application process again but that drawings and more information must be provided to the Board.
Jason Hamilton asked when the next meeting would occur.
Sarah Sitterle informed him that July 12th is the date for the next BZA hearing.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:14 PM.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
______________________ ___________________________
Chairperson Joan Lawler Date
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
March 8th, 2018 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Bob Notestine, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 02/08/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting saying the BZA had received feedback from the community on a few issues. Joan Lawler said she wanted to begin the meeting by describing the function and purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals. In addition Joan Lawler said she cover what the Board has duty, responsiblility and authority to address.
Joan Lawler described the four areas that the BZA has authority over: 1) An administrative review to cover minor errors; 2) Conditional use permits; 3) Requests for a variance; and 4) Finally the Board sometimes provides boundary interpretation in order to solve disputes.
Joan Lawler said that much of the feedback that the Board had been receiving of late was related to traffic, congestion or property value issues. Those areas are not relevant to the BZA.
Joan Lawler said that tonight’s issues are concerned with just two of the things that the Board has authority to act on: Conditional use permits as well as a variance request.
Joan Lawler told the audience that any other feedback would be better addressed at the BOMA or Planning Commission.
Joan Lawler repeated that tonight the Board would only address use with conditions and the variance request for the possible car wash.
Arthur “Trey” Gay recused his vote because of a conflict of interest. Arthur “Trey” Gay has been a friend of Jason Patrick for a long time and discussed the project with Jason Patrick over the past year or so. In addition, Aurthur “Trey” said he is in the car wash business.
Joan Lawler invited Dr. James Clark to come to the stand.
Dr. James Clark said his concerns with a car wash at 912 Oldham relate to safety because children come from the subdivision to the public library, Sonic or Twice Daily. Dr. James Clark is against the idea of a car wash across the street from his dental practice.
Larry Felts came to the stand next and said that David Simpson owned this land at one time and felt the land was not car wash material.
Larry Felts expressed that Nolensville does not need a car wash and that it’s too small and too special a piece of property for this.
Joan Lawler explained that the application from Jason Patrick has two parts and that as a Board they would first discuss use permitted with conditions.
Jason Patrick came to the stand and said he purchased 912 Oldham Drive for a car wash.
Jason Patrick recapped Section 2.2.6 Commercial Services of the Zoning ordinance that does require a minimum 15 foot setback from a local road for the Commercial Services district.
Additionally, in Section 2.3.22 car washes are addressed as a use permitted with conditions.
Jason Patrick addressed each condition individually and said how he would meet each one.
Jason Patrick said the business will be greater than 50 feet from a residential area.
Jason Patrick proposed a tunnel structure car wash and said the opening shall not face any residential property.
Jason Patrick said that the business will not be open between 6 am and 10 pm.
Jason Patrick said the business would not use loudspeakers or a public address sound systems.
Jason Patrick said no “for sale” vehicles will be parked on the premises of the business.
Jason Patrick said that last time our town ordinances were updated was probably 10 years ago. The tunnel car was system is a newer style as compared to single bay system attached to a gas station verses self service with a single wash bay. The style he is proposing is a tunnel style with a single belt conveyor system. Item F of Section 2.3.22 of the ordinance addresses a certain type of car wash that does not really match up with the kind and style of car wash that he is proposing.
Jason Patrick promised to meet with the Design Review Committee in the future and comply with recommendations.
He then addressed the hours of operation with barriers to egress and ingress and buffering. Jason Patrick says that there would be barriers for safety and security. Buffering will be addressed with Sarah Sitterle and staff to make sure he is meeting with those requirements.
Joan interjected that she wanted to make a ruling on the use permitted with conditions aspect.
Jason Patrick said he will meet all the conditions including the 60 foot front setback if need be.
Joan Lawler added that Section 2.2.6 indicates that commercial district allows for a car wash with conditions. Section 2.2.33 gives the specific conditions that must be met. Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick to affirm for the Board that he addressed every one of the conditions. Jason Patrick answered that yes, he has expressed his ability to meet all the conditions.
Tommy Dugger pointed out that this is already a piece of property that is zoned commercially.
Tommy Dugger moved for approval for the use permitted with conditions for the car wash at 912 Oldham Drive because the applicant had demonstrated that he will meet all the conditions. Wade Wakefield seconded this motion. The motion passes unanimously.
Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick to now address the 15 foot variance request.
Tommy Dugger made the point that Jason Patrick failed to check the Variance box on his application. Cristin Webb said that she and Sarah Sitterle have the original application with them tonight and at the end Jason Patrick can check the box and initial beside it.
Jason Patrick said that when he originally submitted the application he was going to comply with the 60 foot setback in terms of the location of the tunnel. However, Jason Patrick spoke with Bill Tisano who owns Town Center Shopping Center. Jason Patrick said he then changed his mind.
Jason Patrick then referred to the plan displayed on the wall. Jason Patrick said his original idea was to have the tunnel system located on the back of the property which would meet the 60 foot setback. The problem with that idea was the visual appearance from Oldham Drive would have been the vacuum booms. So in conversations with Bill Tisano, Joe Epps and staff at Town Hall the decision was made to flip plans so that the tunnel system would be along Oldham Drive.
Jason Patrick reiterated that the new plan obviously was not showing the 60 foot setback but it would meet the 15 foot setback in the Commercial Services district.
Jason Patrick said that masonry and landscaping will help to block or shield the vacuum boom area from Oldham Drive.
Jason Patrick said he decided instead of having access directly off Oldham the point of access will be from a private drive. Two lanes of traffic will enter the site. Once customers arrive on the property they will go to a kiosk pay area and then the cars will go back out to a single lane into the tunnel and out.
Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick what kind of buffering will be on the dryer side.
Jason Patrick said he is willing to put berms and work with staff on the site plan.
Tommy Dugger asked if commercial to commercial does not require buffering.
Sarah Sitterle answered that commercial to commercial use does not but there are perimeter parking lot requirements for some landscaping and these issues will be discussed during the site review process.
Mike Donoho asked Jason Patrick if he purchased or leased the property and Jason Patrick answered that the land was purchased.
Wade Wakefield asked for Jason Patrick to use the drawing to take audience through the tunnel so he might understand how traffic flows out with people also coming in.
Tommy Dugger expressed that it is smart that Jason Patrick is planning to hide the vacuum booms from the street for aesthetic purposes.
Jason Patrick added that the Site Plan does not exist yet because the first step is the use permitted with the conditions. The variance request is related to the design of the site plan. Next, the Design Review passes along recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Jason Patrick promised the Board that this will be the nicest car wash Nolensville has ever seen.
Tommy Dugger added that when people come to Nolensville they say our Dollar General is the nicest Dollar General they have seen and that the Town of Nolensville has very high standards.
Next Tommy moved for approval of the variance request because there is no harm to the general public. Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:49 PM.
Nolensville Town Hall
March 8th, 2018 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Bob Notestine, Tommy Dugger, Wade Wakefield, Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 02/08/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler began the meeting saying the BZA had received feedback from the community on a few issues. Joan Lawler said she wanted to begin the meeting by describing the function and purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals. In addition Joan Lawler said she cover what the Board has duty, responsiblility and authority to address.
Joan Lawler described the four areas that the BZA has authority over: 1) An administrative review to cover minor errors; 2) Conditional use permits; 3) Requests for a variance; and 4) Finally the Board sometimes provides boundary interpretation in order to solve disputes.
Joan Lawler said that much of the feedback that the Board had been receiving of late was related to traffic, congestion or property value issues. Those areas are not relevant to the BZA.
Joan Lawler said that tonight’s issues are concerned with just two of the things that the Board has authority to act on: Conditional use permits as well as a variance request.
Joan Lawler told the audience that any other feedback would be better addressed at the BOMA or Planning Commission.
Joan Lawler repeated that tonight the Board would only address use with conditions and the variance request for the possible car wash.
Arthur “Trey” Gay recused his vote because of a conflict of interest. Arthur “Trey” Gay has been a friend of Jason Patrick for a long time and discussed the project with Jason Patrick over the past year or so. In addition, Aurthur “Trey” said he is in the car wash business.
Joan Lawler invited Dr. James Clark to come to the stand.
Dr. James Clark said his concerns with a car wash at 912 Oldham relate to safety because children come from the subdivision to the public library, Sonic or Twice Daily. Dr. James Clark is against the idea of a car wash across the street from his dental practice.
Larry Felts came to the stand next and said that David Simpson owned this land at one time and felt the land was not car wash material.
Larry Felts expressed that Nolensville does not need a car wash and that it’s too small and too special a piece of property for this.
Joan Lawler explained that the application from Jason Patrick has two parts and that as a Board they would first discuss use permitted with conditions.
Jason Patrick came to the stand and said he purchased 912 Oldham Drive for a car wash.
Jason Patrick recapped Section 2.2.6 Commercial Services of the Zoning ordinance that does require a minimum 15 foot setback from a local road for the Commercial Services district.
Additionally, in Section 2.3.22 car washes are addressed as a use permitted with conditions.
Jason Patrick addressed each condition individually and said how he would meet each one.
Jason Patrick said the business will be greater than 50 feet from a residential area.
Jason Patrick proposed a tunnel structure car wash and said the opening shall not face any residential property.
Jason Patrick said that the business will not be open between 6 am and 10 pm.
Jason Patrick said the business would not use loudspeakers or a public address sound systems.
Jason Patrick said no “for sale” vehicles will be parked on the premises of the business.
Jason Patrick said that last time our town ordinances were updated was probably 10 years ago. The tunnel car was system is a newer style as compared to single bay system attached to a gas station verses self service with a single wash bay. The style he is proposing is a tunnel style with a single belt conveyor system. Item F of Section 2.3.22 of the ordinance addresses a certain type of car wash that does not really match up with the kind and style of car wash that he is proposing.
Jason Patrick promised to meet with the Design Review Committee in the future and comply with recommendations.
He then addressed the hours of operation with barriers to egress and ingress and buffering. Jason Patrick says that there would be barriers for safety and security. Buffering will be addressed with Sarah Sitterle and staff to make sure he is meeting with those requirements.
Joan interjected that she wanted to make a ruling on the use permitted with conditions aspect.
Jason Patrick said he will meet all the conditions including the 60 foot front setback if need be.
Joan Lawler added that Section 2.2.6 indicates that commercial district allows for a car wash with conditions. Section 2.2.33 gives the specific conditions that must be met. Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick to affirm for the Board that he addressed every one of the conditions. Jason Patrick answered that yes, he has expressed his ability to meet all the conditions.
Tommy Dugger pointed out that this is already a piece of property that is zoned commercially.
Tommy Dugger moved for approval for the use permitted with conditions for the car wash at 912 Oldham Drive because the applicant had demonstrated that he will meet all the conditions. Wade Wakefield seconded this motion. The motion passes unanimously.
Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick to now address the 15 foot variance request.
Tommy Dugger made the point that Jason Patrick failed to check the Variance box on his application. Cristin Webb said that she and Sarah Sitterle have the original application with them tonight and at the end Jason Patrick can check the box and initial beside it.
Jason Patrick said that when he originally submitted the application he was going to comply with the 60 foot setback in terms of the location of the tunnel. However, Jason Patrick spoke with Bill Tisano who owns Town Center Shopping Center. Jason Patrick said he then changed his mind.
Jason Patrick then referred to the plan displayed on the wall. Jason Patrick said his original idea was to have the tunnel system located on the back of the property which would meet the 60 foot setback. The problem with that idea was the visual appearance from Oldham Drive would have been the vacuum booms. So in conversations with Bill Tisano, Joe Epps and staff at Town Hall the decision was made to flip plans so that the tunnel system would be along Oldham Drive.
Jason Patrick reiterated that the new plan obviously was not showing the 60 foot setback but it would meet the 15 foot setback in the Commercial Services district.
Jason Patrick said that masonry and landscaping will help to block or shield the vacuum boom area from Oldham Drive.
Jason Patrick said he decided instead of having access directly off Oldham the point of access will be from a private drive. Two lanes of traffic will enter the site. Once customers arrive on the property they will go to a kiosk pay area and then the cars will go back out to a single lane into the tunnel and out.
Joan Lawler asked Jason Patrick what kind of buffering will be on the dryer side.
Jason Patrick said he is willing to put berms and work with staff on the site plan.
Tommy Dugger asked if commercial to commercial does not require buffering.
Sarah Sitterle answered that commercial to commercial use does not but there are perimeter parking lot requirements for some landscaping and these issues will be discussed during the site review process.
Mike Donoho asked Jason Patrick if he purchased or leased the property and Jason Patrick answered that the land was purchased.
Wade Wakefield asked for Jason Patrick to use the drawing to take audience through the tunnel so he might understand how traffic flows out with people also coming in.
Tommy Dugger expressed that it is smart that Jason Patrick is planning to hide the vacuum booms from the street for aesthetic purposes.
Jason Patrick added that the Site Plan does not exist yet because the first step is the use permitted with the conditions. The variance request is related to the design of the site plan. Next, the Design Review passes along recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Jason Patrick promised the Board that this will be the nicest car wash Nolensville has ever seen.
Tommy Dugger added that when people come to Nolensville they say our Dollar General is the nicest Dollar General they have seen and that the Town of Nolensville has very high standards.
Next Tommy moved for approval of the variance request because there is no harm to the general public. Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:49 PM.
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
February 8th, 2018 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger and Wade Wakefield
Members Absent: Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 01/11/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler introduced the veterinary office applicant at 7238 Haley Industrial Drive.
Brent Smith and Tammy Parmentier from Smith & Jones were present as well as the veterinarian Dr. Angela Marino.
Dr. Angela Marino came to the stand and stated that she is moving her veterinarian practice from Cool Springs to Nolensville.
Dr. Angela Marino said she is hoping to have 60 dog runs, 30 cat suites and examination in a 3,000 square foot building.
Dr. Angela Marino hopes to employ approximately twenty-four employees.
Dr. Angela Marino’s practice will offer interactive day care, overnight boarding and all veterinary services.
Dr. Angela Marino has been in business for over 18 years in Cool Springs.
Tammy Parmentier from Smith & Jones came to the stand and discussed the architectural structure. The building will be a pre-engineered structure divided up into exam rooms and offices. The opposite side of the building will have dog kennels and doggie day care areas.
Dr. Angela Marino added that there will be no outdoor runs.
Brent Smith from Smith & Jones came to the stand and said that the variance they request would be helpful since they don’t want two separate buildings.
Tommy Dugger asked Sarah Sitterle if the applicant has met all the conditions and Sarah Sitterle answered, “Yes.”
Tommy Dugger moved for approval and the use permitted with conditions passed unanimously.
Tommy Dugger said that after doing some research he and staff were not sure where the 4,000 square foot requirement came from in the Zoning Ordinance.
Joan Lawler added that this language is most likely an artifact of the past.
Joan Lawler added that most of buildings around it are greater than 10,000 feet.
Tommy Dugger added that Staff will most likely correct this language it since it isn’t relevant.
Tommy Dugger then moved to permit the one 10,000 square foot building since in doing this there is no harm to the public welfare.
Tommy Dugger added that the building isn’t adjacent to residential developments and will be located in the industrial park, which is perfect.
Wade Wakefield seconded this motion and it passed unanimously.
Tommy Dugger offered a motion to adjourn and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion.
Tommy Dugger reminded the applicant to obtain all appropriate building permits.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:08 PM.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
Nolensville Town Hall
February 8th, 2018 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Joan Lawler, Tommy Dugger and Wade Wakefield
Members Absent: Arthur “Trey” Gay & Mike Donoho
Staff Present: Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 01/11/18 BZA meeting and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler introduced the veterinary office applicant at 7238 Haley Industrial Drive.
Brent Smith and Tammy Parmentier from Smith & Jones were present as well as the veterinarian Dr. Angela Marino.
Dr. Angela Marino came to the stand and stated that she is moving her veterinarian practice from Cool Springs to Nolensville.
Dr. Angela Marino said she is hoping to have 60 dog runs, 30 cat suites and examination in a 3,000 square foot building.
Dr. Angela Marino hopes to employ approximately twenty-four employees.
Dr. Angela Marino’s practice will offer interactive day care, overnight boarding and all veterinary services.
Dr. Angela Marino has been in business for over 18 years in Cool Springs.
Tammy Parmentier from Smith & Jones came to the stand and discussed the architectural structure. The building will be a pre-engineered structure divided up into exam rooms and offices. The opposite side of the building will have dog kennels and doggie day care areas.
Dr. Angela Marino added that there will be no outdoor runs.
Brent Smith from Smith & Jones came to the stand and said that the variance they request would be helpful since they don’t want two separate buildings.
Tommy Dugger asked Sarah Sitterle if the applicant has met all the conditions and Sarah Sitterle answered, “Yes.”
Tommy Dugger moved for approval and the use permitted with conditions passed unanimously.
Tommy Dugger said that after doing some research he and staff were not sure where the 4,000 square foot requirement came from in the Zoning Ordinance.
Joan Lawler added that this language is most likely an artifact of the past.
Joan Lawler added that most of buildings around it are greater than 10,000 feet.
Tommy Dugger added that Staff will most likely correct this language it since it isn’t relevant.
Tommy Dugger then moved to permit the one 10,000 square foot building since in doing this there is no harm to the public welfare.
Tommy Dugger added that the building isn’t adjacent to residential developments and will be located in the industrial park, which is perfect.
Wade Wakefield seconded this motion and it passed unanimously.
Tommy Dugger offered a motion to adjourn and Wade Wakefield seconded the motion.
Tommy Dugger reminded the applicant to obtain all appropriate building permits.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:08 PM.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
Nolensville Board of Zoning Appeals
Nolensville Town Hall
January 11, 2018 7:00 p.m.
All Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Joan Lawler, Arthur “Trey” Gay, Mike Donaho, and Wade Wakefield
Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 11/09/17 BZA meeting and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler introduced the case before the Committee for a variance for a side yard set back at 1117 Oak Creek Drive in Stonebrook.
James Napolitano came to the podium and explained that he is renovating his home so that he can build a master bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. James Napolitano is asking for a two foot variance because if he doesn’t go two feet into the side yard setback he will cover his window over the sink in his kitchen.
Joan Lawler opened the discussion to the board.
Tommy Dugger invited any neighbors to speak but no one came to the podium.
Mike Donaho asked why the addition can not be two feet narrower.
James Napolitano explained that room is needed for the hallway that leads into the master bedroom and bathroom.
James Napolitano explained that he shrunk the plans down by a foot on either side as much as he could.
Wade Wakefield asked if the extension was going out to the side or the back.
James Napolitano answered that the addition is going out the back by 6 feet.
Joan Lawler asked if there is a structural necessity to make it this size.
James Napolitano answered that he simply does not want to cover up the window over the kitchen sink.
Bob Notestine pointed out that the home is built on the setback line which qualifies this case for a hardship.
Arthur “Trey” Gay pointed out that if you go straight out the back following the line it runs into the setback.
Tommy Dugger pointed out that the back corner is already on the line.
The Mayor and a Boy Scout Troop 297 entered the Auditorium and led everyone in a second pledge of allegiance.
Bob Notestine asked if the home is 20-25 years old?
James Napolitano answered that the home was built in 1989 so it is almost 30 years old.
Joan Lawler asked about the distance from the east wall to the kitchen window. James Napolitano answers that it is less than 2 feet.
James Napolitano added that he is also modifying the steps to add a landing so the steps do not go straight down.
Arthur “Trey” Gay made a motion to approve and points out how wonderful it is that James Napolitano and his family wants to stay in Nolensville. Arthur “Trey” Gay adds that he hopes to make similar decisions when he is older. Arthur “Trey” Gay also added that there is no harm to the public in this decision.
Tommy Dugger seconded the motion explaining that the lot is so close to the set back line already that James Napolitano’s case qualifies for a hardship.
James Napolitano added that he has been in Nolensville for a long time and that he used to run the air conditioning business beside the Two-Way.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:14 P.M.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
Nolensville Town Hall
January 11, 2018 7:00 p.m.
All Members Present: Tommy Dugger, Joan Lawler, Arthur “Trey” Gay, Mike Donaho, and Wade Wakefield
Staff Present: Attorney Bob Notestine, Town Planner Sarah Sitterle and
Codes Assistant Cristin Webb
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Joan Lawler.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Joan Lawler led the pledge of allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tommy Dugger moved to approve minutes from the 11/09/17 BZA meeting and Arthur “Trey” Gay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Joan Lawler introduced the case before the Committee for a variance for a side yard set back at 1117 Oak Creek Drive in Stonebrook.
James Napolitano came to the podium and explained that he is renovating his home so that he can build a master bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. James Napolitano is asking for a two foot variance because if he doesn’t go two feet into the side yard setback he will cover his window over the sink in his kitchen.
Joan Lawler opened the discussion to the board.
Tommy Dugger invited any neighbors to speak but no one came to the podium.
Mike Donaho asked why the addition can not be two feet narrower.
James Napolitano explained that room is needed for the hallway that leads into the master bedroom and bathroom.
James Napolitano explained that he shrunk the plans down by a foot on either side as much as he could.
Wade Wakefield asked if the extension was going out to the side or the back.
James Napolitano answered that the addition is going out the back by 6 feet.
Joan Lawler asked if there is a structural necessity to make it this size.
James Napolitano answered that he simply does not want to cover up the window over the kitchen sink.
Bob Notestine pointed out that the home is built on the setback line which qualifies this case for a hardship.
Arthur “Trey” Gay pointed out that if you go straight out the back following the line it runs into the setback.
Tommy Dugger pointed out that the back corner is already on the line.
The Mayor and a Boy Scout Troop 297 entered the Auditorium and led everyone in a second pledge of allegiance.
Bob Notestine asked if the home is 20-25 years old?
James Napolitano answered that the home was built in 1989 so it is almost 30 years old.
Joan Lawler asked about the distance from the east wall to the kitchen window. James Napolitano answers that it is less than 2 feet.
James Napolitano added that he is also modifying the steps to add a landing so the steps do not go straight down.
Arthur “Trey” Gay made a motion to approve and points out how wonderful it is that James Napolitano and his family wants to stay in Nolensville. Arthur “Trey” Gay adds that he hopes to make similar decisions when he is older. Arthur “Trey” Gay also added that there is no harm to the public in this decision.
Tommy Dugger seconded the motion explaining that the lot is so close to the set back line already that James Napolitano’s case qualifies for a hardship.
James Napolitano added that he has been in Nolensville for a long time and that he used to run the air conditioning business beside the Two-Way.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Since there was no other business Joan Lawler adjourned the meeting at 7:14 P.M.
Minutes taken by Cristin Webb
